On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 1:13 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/05, Yafang Shao wrote: > > The result as follows, > > > > $ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs --name=task_under_cgroup > > #237 task_under_cgroup:OK > > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > > > And no error messages in dmesg. > > > > Without the prev patch, there will be RCU warnings in dmesg. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_under_cgroup.c | 8 +++++-- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_task_under_cgroup.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_under_cgroup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_under_cgroup.c > > index 4224727..d1a5a5c 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_under_cgroup.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_under_cgroup.c > > @@ -30,8 +30,12 @@ void test_task_under_cgroup(void) > > if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_task_under_cgroup__load")) > > goto cleanup; > > > > - ret = test_task_under_cgroup__attach(skel); > > - if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_task_under_cgroup__attach")) > > + skel->links.lsm_run = bpf_program__attach_lsm(skel->progs.lsm_run); > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->links.lsm_run, "attach_lsm")) > > + goto cleanup; > > + > > So we rely on the second attach here to trigger the program above? Right. > Maybe add a comment? Otherwise we might risk loosing this dependency > after some refactoring... Sure. will add a comment. > > Other than that, both patches look good to me, feel free to use for both > if/when you resend: > > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your review. -- Regards Yafang
